Allowed

Jaisal v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2016Crl.MC/3384/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners who were acquitted from the same case. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held that since the trial witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the incidents were amicably resolved, continuing the trial would cause a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.P.No.55/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Manjeri, are quashed.

Jaisal Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3384 of 2016 ()

¶6

CP.NO.55/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MANJERI CRIME NO. 157/2009 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. JAISAL S/O.ABOOBACKER, CHALIL KIZHAKKE THALAPPAVIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. FASALUDHEEN S/O.ABOOBACKER, CHALIL KIZHAKKE THALAPPAVIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

¶11

JAMSHEER S/O.HAMZA,

¶12

CHALIL KIZHAKKE THALAPPAVIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

¶14

YASHIQ S/O.HAMZA,

¶15

CHALIL KIZHAKKE THALAPPAVIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

5. JABIR ALI S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, PALLIYAN HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6. MUHAMMED FAHAD S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, KOORIMANNIL PARAPPURATH HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

¶19

SHIBIN S/O.BASHEER, KANHIRAMPOKKIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

...2/-

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 3384 of 2016 () -2-

¶22

8. SHANAVAS CHUNKATH HOUSE, PANAYI, ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶24

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED :

¶25

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031 - FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶26

2. KUTTIPULIYAN PRADEESH S/O.PARANGODEN, KUTTIPULIYAN HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, VENGALLOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509.

¶27

3. ASHOK KUMAR S/O.CHOZHI, KANKADI HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, VENGALLOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509.

¶28

4. KILIYODAN MUHAMMED S/O.ALAVI HAJI, KILIYODAN HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, VENGALLOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509.

¶29

5. RAMESH S/O.THAMI, ATHIKKAL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, VENGALLOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509.

¶30

6. JAYAPRAKASH S/O.AYYAPPAN, NARAYANITHODI HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, VENGALLOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509.

¶31

7. GIREESH S/O.PARANGODAN, KUTIPULIYAN HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, VENGALLOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 509.

¶32

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 TO R7 BY ADV. SMT.K.NISHA

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

...3/-

¶36

Crl.MC.No. 3384 of 2016 ()

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶39

ANNEXURE A	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.157/2009 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE B	CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI IN S.C.NO.383/2013 DATED, 31.7.2014.
ANNEXURE C	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2014.
ANNEXURE D	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2014.
ANNEXURE E	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2014.
ANNEXURE F	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 5H RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2014.
ANNEXURE G	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2014.
ANNEXURE H	TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------------------	ANNEXURES : NIL -----------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. J

¶44

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2016

¶46

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶47

Dated 14^th June, 2016

¶48

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 14 in Crime No.157/2009 of Manjeri police

¶51

station which is registered at the instance of the 2^nd respondent herein for offences punishable under Sections. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w S.149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section.27 of the Arms Act.

¶52

2.The prosecution allegation is that on 28.02.2009, the petitioners in furtherance of their common object, attacked the respondents using weapons and thus committed the offence.

¶53

3.After investigation, final report was laid and committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate as C.P.No.55/2013. Thereafter, the case was made over to

¶54

the Court of Sessions and numbered as

¶55

Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2016 : 2 :

¶56

S.C.No.383/2013.

¶57

4.Out of the 14 accused who were arrayed in the final report, accused Nos.3, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 alone appeared before the learned Sessions Court and and faced trial. As per Annexure B judgment dated 31.07.2014, the aforesaid accused were extended the benefit of doubt and they have found not guilty of the offence. They were acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. The case against the petitioners was split up and was refiled. The case is now pending as C.P.No.55/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Manjeri. It is submitted by the learned counsel that after the acquittal of the co-accused, the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant and also the injured witnesses who had been arrayed as respondent Nos.3 to 7 have amicably resolved all the subsisting disputes and are living in peace and harmony. It is also submitted that continuance of criminal proceedings will impede their friendly and cordial relationship.

¶58

5.The respondents 2 to 7 have entered appearance through

¶59

Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2016 : 3 :

¶60

counsel and referring to Annexures C to H individual affidavits sworn to by the said respondents submitted that the disputes have been amicably resolved and they do not intend or wish that the petitioners be prosecuted in the aforesaid case. It is also submitted that they have no objection in allowing this petition and quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶61

6.The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents.

¶62

7.I have gone through Annexure B judgment and it is evident that none of witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and it was on its basis that the order of acquittal was passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge as per Annexure B judgment. These observations, would definitely affect the very substratum of the prosecution case. As held by Three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused

¶63

Crl.M.C.No.3384 of 2016 : 4 :

¶64

therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section

¶65

482 of the Code, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

¶66

8.I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and

¶67

anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466) and other cases.

¶68

9.This Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. The proceedings as against the petitioners in C.P.No.55/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Manjeri, is hereby quashed.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶71

¶72

[True copy]

¶73

P.A to Judge

Jaisal v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaisal v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakhimol Vs State of Kerala

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala